"The Wife Murderer: 'She Pissed Me Off'" (B&W Edition)

This is the self-confessed and at the time recently released wife

murderer (second degree) who spent eight years in a penitentiary

for killing his wife. 'She pissed me off', he explained to me and

also passengers in the Greyhound bus, shown rear with its running

lights in circles of confusion, large tire to the left of his shoulder.

All of this photo is deliberately OUT OF FOCUS except for the tip

of his cigarette, which is in precise focus in this 2:00 - 3:00 a.m.

bus rest stop photo at highway's side. Your ratings, critiques and

observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly,

very critically or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful

and constructive comment, please share your photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. (film capture)

Thanks! Enjoy, or at least count this as a learning experience)!

john

This photo is deliberately Out of Focus in every part except the glowing cigarette tip.

Why?

This also has been posted elsewhere in color.

john

John (Crosley)

The murderer here reflects on his ill-spent life and eight years in the penitentiary for his 'crime of passion' (was the pot roast overdone?; were his shorts not ironed or had too much starch?)

He did not explain exactly WHY he was so outraged he killed her or even HOW, before he got on his bus in the middle of the early morning darkness to go off to pursue what was left of a vanishing life that never sounded like it really got much of a good start.

Although quite old looking here, he actually was much younger than I, but I looked much younger than he and I felt decades younger than he looked.

On disability for unspecified medical conditions after an eight-year prison stretch (a good feeder, he told me), he explained he was writing about his life and experiences and telling tales of his life to fellow passengers who he said seemed to enjoy his tales.

(Maybe at 3:00 a.m. telling the convicted wife murderer to be quiet did not sound like such good judgment to them?)

I was driving and stopped for gas and a Coke at between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. or so with my usual camera (film) and a 85 f 1.8 lens at my side at a gas station in a rural town off I-5, Northern California, when the bus pulled in bearing this man, McGee, I seem to recall.

The blurriness of the photo emphasizes his wasted life - the sharpness of his burning cigarette here symbolizes his present circumstances, traveling from town to town by bus, living off disability-welfare, appearing mostly rootless, writing, he said, about his life experiences including a future lifetime envisioned without much creature comfort and without much hope of security -- branded forever  'Murderer', 'Felon' and a "Natural Suspect' wherever he would travel.

As he explained this to me, he sucked deeply one last time on his cigarette, then got on the bus and left.

I left the other direction.

We were two strangers passing in the night. 

The murderer and I.

john

John (Crosley)

Copyright 2012, John Crosley/Crosley Trust, all rights reserved, usual rights to Photo.net

The photo is a very good portrait and your decision to focus on the cigarette tip works well for me. But I don't understand what the story about this man should add to the photo. Why do you tell us this story? Why could he wanted you to know his story? What does it really tell us about him? Branded for the rest of his life? If he didn't tell you, you would never have known it and therefore he was not branded in your eyes. So is he a storyteller? Don't misunderstand me. I don't want to critizise you. I'm just asking.

Yes, he is a storyteller.

That is the point of my story.  He was telling the story of his life to bus passengers, in in the early morning darkness, thinking they were very interested.

Maybe they were very interested, maybe just fearful of telling him to 'shut up', but for sure he was honing his story-telling skills.  He was practicing them with bus passengers AND with me.

Basically, your question asks me, retrospectively to crawl into his dark psyche, and that can only be done spectulatively. 

Luckily, I'm a keen, trained observer, so I may even have a correct surmise, speculative as it may be.

I don't think, based on my talk with him, that he's a DEXTER, for instance, loaded with 'issues' and resolving them through mass killings -- and 'impulses' he can't stop.  He probably did at the time have a very short fuse, however -- most who do such things have very low impulse control.

I hope that answers your question.

He may have been stigmatized, but may have been trying to live with it and glorify or at least rationalize it in some way -- to somehow bring his reality into a more socially palatable way -- by saying he was writing about it, and by making it the subject of reflective conversation. 

Better than murdering again, don't you think?

In a way, he was saying, 'I'm rehabilitated' and 'I'm no danger' though if he just said nothing (as you note) we'd be none the wiser.  (good point).

In a way, it's as though he thinks we can 'see' his former convinct status, I think, and that he must explain it.  But the fact is, when a man's been to prison, most peace officers can instantly tell by looking at the man's behaviors -- he walks, talks, eats and otherwise acts in certain ways. 

He may be fighting to reassimulate into society.

[whew, that's quite an exercise, for such a short meeting. I hadn't realized I knew so much, but then I'm a former attorney, from decades ago, and even if I didn't practice criminal law, came upon such individuals in a civil practice with some frequency.]

john

John (Crosley)

Further, I would not have taken this portrait as I did, without the knowledge of this man's having been a murderer and his present life circumstance, which he told me as we stood there.

It greatly influenced how I captured his portrait, wrinkles, sunken jowls, sucking deeply on his fag, out of focus everything except cigarette tip and all.

It just seemed right, as he explained his life to me; and I regard it as one of my better portraits, a portrait deeply 'in synch' with the depth of my subject.

john

John (Crosley)

Interesting story and an interesting portrait. Although, even without a story about this man, this portrait can tell a lot.

The story is there and told by  me because it's very interesting.

However, the photo is constructed or designed through depth of field and other photographic devices to 'tell a story' of such despair, even without knowing the story behind it.

One should be able to see this portrait on exhibiton walls and understand that this man is not in a happy life and be a bit disturbed by it; that's why it's presented so.

One needn't know the particulars as you so correctly note.

Thanks for insightful critique.

john

John (Crosley)

[This is comment 15,000 under my photos]

I like the photo. The way he is blurred and the hand is in focus makes a statement (as you noted). I rated as "5". As for "wife muderer", if you belive that story I have a bridge to Arizona I'll like to sell you.

Thank you for the compliment about the photo.

I wouldn't have displayed it if, in my experience, which includes lots of experience coming across very hardened criminals, including many who have done 'hard time', I didn't believe him.  He knew things most people don't a bout that life, and I listened carefully for veracity -- I don't pride myself on being gullible about such things.

I believe in his story 100%, as told to me there on the spot.

If you, in your small apartment in Israel, don't believe, then you doubt my judgment and my ability to discriminate such things based on my very long time on this earth plus a former profession that called for me to have contact with such people far more than occasionally AND my story of how I encountered him.

There is plenty in what he told me that I didn't print, also, that helped make a believer of me.

I wasn't some 'big name photographer' to try to impress, and not even known by anybody at the time this was taken -- there is no way he could have known that later tens of millions would click on my photos when he told me that story.  And who wants to claim he is a murderer, anyway?

I also asked testing questions and got what I considered anwers that indicated veracity.

Who wants to tell a then no-name photographer (read that car drive with a camera) at 3:00 a.m. or so at a bus stop/gas station beside Interstate 5 in California that you've murdered your wife, got caught, done eight years hard time in a Dakota penitentiary (describing it), then were released, and living on SSI (disability) and writing about your life experiences and at the same time telling the same story to bus passengers (some of whom acknowledged hearing the story to me before as returned to the bus).

You said a 'bridge TO Arizona', but if you'd said a bridge IN Arizona, I'd have you consider that the London Bridge now is there.

I think my judgment with my life experience and knowledge having met the man personally trumps your second hand experience living as a retiree in Israel, with no other special abilities noted for discernment, beyond reading what I wrote, disagreeing for some wild and unexplained reason, other than your well-known penchant for provoking, prodding and jibing comments underneath my photos sometimes without any basis at all -- maybe to get attention for yourself?

john

John (Crosley)

When I met this man, it was in the checkout line of the filling station grocery where had just made one of my greatest portraits of my career (film), of a black woman patron, a bus passenger probably on welfare.

Most passengers on those buses at that time were (1) on welfare, (2) ex-convicts (3) occasionally students and (4) a few tourists.  That's changed somewhat as Greyhound has cleaned up its act and its terminals. 

At that time I called this particular bus line the 'welfare and ex-con express', as with some frequency I came across numerous passengers from buses on this particular line stopped at various rest stops where I often chatted with passengers.

I approached him, viewed him, regarded his tattoos (seemed to be prison tattoos), and saw a certain hardened behavior and mien that I have come to associate with 'ex-con', and asked him if he could describe for me if he ever had 'any trouble with the law'.

He said, yes he did, and after my questioning said he did eight years in a prison in one of the two Dakotas (which one is in my notes).  He described that time briefly and what he was in for only after I questioned him. 

He was telling bus passengers about his time in prison and his time afterward (an unexplained period, although I then knew his age at in carceration).  He said he was writing a book about his experiences and trying it out on passengers.

His murder seems to have  been not premeditated, which is second degree, the only way you spend eight years and not life or 25 years to life in prison, for a murder in just about any state. 

He also looked and acted like he had infirmities that would justify an award of SSI which is health based Social Security welfare payments, based on one of the US's most stringent tests of disability (second hardest in the US almost, right after that of 'disabled widow' in the very stringent Security disability hierarchy). 

Some insurance companies used to write disablity policies that required 'house confinement' but court wouldn't enforce those any more in most states, because those companies never meant to pay on those policies.

As one adjuster testified in a landmark case, a disability claimant claiming 'house confinement' who took even a trip one day out of the house accompanied by relatives to a baseball game while confined to a wheelchair and otherwise was confined to his house for the whole year was 'disqualified' from receiving house confined disabilty benefits. 

A jury disagreed and not only gave the man benefits but also millions to punish the company for really never intending to pay benefits at all and for cheating behavior.

Most courts now hold insurance companies, regardless of policy language, to a lower standard of policy holder disability requiring that you 'can't do your own occupation or any other occupation for which you are reasonably suited which exists in substantial numbers in your region or the nation  (and is not dying out, like at one time railroad firemen were -- they're all gone now, along with the cabooses.) 

That doesn't mean if you're an executive and can no longer do executive jobs, you get disability if you can do laborer work because you're only 'reasonably suited to the best job - e.g. executive.

You're not disabled if you do any work, and if you can do laborer work, then you're not disabled, because ALL people are reasonably suited for such work, regardless of former occupation, if medical conditions permit no matter the past occupation.

More than you wanted to know, I know, but I have experience in such things, and also talked to this subject briefly about that.  He showed that he knew from whence he spoke about his disability and payments, other indicators of veracity.

He passed my tests for veracity face-to-face; you in Israel have NO reasonable (not fantastic) basis on which to doubt them or me.

Furthermore you have totally misused the word 'hearsay'.

What I write and you read is 'hearsay' to you, but what he told me is not hearsay at all -- it's direct evidence to me.

john

John (Crosley)

Case A: "Ronit told me she saw Elon in town today" is hearsay (webster). Case B: "I saw Elon in town today" is direct evidence (webster). Somewhere above you wrote "provoke". I NEVER, intended to provoke. Envoke yes; disagree yes; sometimes tell you that you are dead wrong and why, yes -but not provoke.

You say you 'give reasons' for your comments.

You gave none for expressing doubt.

That is just plain provocative.

You had no reasonable (as opposed to imaginary or fantastic) cause for your remark of doubt -- maybe something you dreamed up, but without any support at all other than your own imagination versus very strong evidence otherwise.

That's provocative.

As to hearsay, I spent two decades learning and practicing it; I know it clearly, plus FYI some 'hearsay' also is deemed reliable despite its being hearsay and is allowed in court under the numerous so-called exceptions to the hearsay rule e.g., 'excited utterance, business records, and so forth, because certain 'hearsay' has special indicators of reliability. 

But what this man told me about his crime was not hearsay, it was direct evidence -- e.g., enough of a confession if he had not already been jailed for it, for it to have put him behind bars for the crime and from my direct evidence if I were to have testified about what he told me.

Capiche?

I appreciate you get your legal definitions from Webster.

I got my legal education first through a full three years of an accredited law school ending in a J.D. with honors after casebook, hornbook, and Socratic study, including a course in evidence plus many courses (e.g., Constitutional Law, which related to admissible evidence and important parts of many other courses), plus I gathered and used direct evidence daily and used it in court and related cases for the better part of two decades in practice.   I used evidence in every facet of law practice including but not limited to writing briefs, motions, trying cases, and conducting judicial hearings continually, ending in 1988 when I got divorced and my spouse asked for a court-ordered $12,000 a month in spousal support, at which point I retired for my health -- doctor's orders.

At that rate the requested amount was equivalent to buying a new house every year or so in Silicon Valley, CA for cash just in support, if granted. 

The judge  gave her zip [bupkus if you understand Yiddish well, which I believe you do, e.g., the end product of goats] -- I had offered her the law practice as I retired, and she refused, so the judge gave her opportunism its just reward  -- reliance only on the legal education she had which she and I paid for and her own J.D. from the same school where I got mine without a penney of support plus of course confirming with my blessing her half of the community property which was then very substantial, and which she well deserved.

She went on to a very productive career, and I have read died at a very early age.

john

John (Crosley)

I guess the duality of the photo struck me the most. When I first saw the thumbnail my mind made an impression about the old man...something sad, poignant. But when the image came up with the title as given, I was taken aback. I somehow couldn't connect this face with murder. Shows the duality of human nature I guess.

The decision to keep everything out of focus except for the cigarette tip has helped this image stick to the mind. I wouldn't care about the distractions around him - the lights, tyres etc...even the lines on his forehead (which otherwise would have been a great source of interest) fades out when presented with the fact about the past that he carries with him. 

As quick as a burning cigarette - his life has changed. The B&W edition also accentuates everything about him and him alone. This is a fantastic capture. 

-RB

I took this when I first restarted photography and posting on Photo.net after a long hiatus almost of decades taking only a photo here of there.

On this re-introduction to photography, I was serious, having found a forum in Photo.net to show my work to what turned out to be millions of views and viewers.  I took this and another photo with a 85 mm lens f 1.8 in the middle of the night outdoors, with focus plane so narrow I could not turn the screw focus drive to isolate the focus plane but instead had to rock back and forth on the balls of my feet -- forward a little, then backward, until his cigarette tip was in focus.  (Needless to say, there were many misses).  But it only took ONE hit, of course, and that's the magic of photography.  If you get it, that's all that matters.

This is a film capture -- I took film for six or seven months before switching to digital and filmd nearly bankrupted me.  It was color film, here converted in Photoshop to black and white, and I have always placed this image in 'among my very best' though it does for some require a story to 'make the best sense' of the capture of this man, named McGee, adrift in life, disabled and writing a book about his empty life, riding Greyhound buses around for the company when riding them was dirt cheap, disabled and living on Social Security disability.

I met him briefly at a 3:00 a.m. bus stop, his bus honked (bus background), then he rode off into the night and I've heard nothing from him since, nor do I ever expect to.

I think this is stronger as a color capture, and although I cannot guarantee it will always stay in this place, I urge you to click through (or copy and paste) to this image found in my 'dColor:   Then to Now folder': 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2220494&size=lg

This is the same image, and I see now that the red glow on the end should be enhanced just a little bit now that I have more experience with Photoshop.  I prefer the color version personally, but this is one of those rare shots that works well in color and black and white  -- it just seems stronger to me in color.

As to your comment; it's also fantastic.  You have read the photo amazingly well and thoroughly.  Your understanding of this photo is superb and your articulateness in analyzing it is spot on.  Anyone who wants to understand this photo had best just read what you have written, and I incorporate the entirety of your remarks as though I had written them (that's how trustworthy I feel they are).

From a very grateful John, for investing the time and trouble to analyze this image and to let me know your superb analysis.

john

John (Crosley)